Triplett v. Beuckman

40 Ill. App. 3d 379 (1976)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and Ds entered into a written contract for the sale of certain real property. The property conveyed consisted of an island, with residential improvements, except for a riparian 10-foot circumferential strip, which was retained by P. Ds were granted the right to use and cross that 10-foot strip of land but not to improve it. Ds were given a right to recreational use of the lake in which the island was located 'jointly with the owners of said lake.' They were also granted an easement 'for roadway purposes' across a described portion of the land surrounding the lake to a bridge. The bridge provided the only above-water access to the island. At the time of the conveyance, it was in need of repair. D attempted to obtain the assistance of Ps in repairing the bridge not long after Ds began to occupy the island residence. P refused to help. Ds repaired the bridge by resurfacing it with concrete and iron reinforcing rods. A portion of the bridge 'gave way.' Ds removed the bridge, filled the same area with soil, rock, and concrete, paved the surface with asphalt, and covered the sides of the fill with stone. Ps sued D for injunctive relief. P contends that the removal of the bridge and construction of the causeway deprived Ps of the fastest or most convenient water access from some points along the lake to other points. Ps also contend their ability to take advantage of the circular nature of the lake for boating and water-skiing activities was now destroyed. In the past, Ps were able to boat and waterski completely around the island by passing under the bridge. D testified that 'there was hardly any water underneath the bridge to start with. It was all dried up.' In D's opinion, it would not have been possible to water-ski under the bridge 'unless you put wheels on the bottoms of the skis, cause there was no water there at all hardly.' D's testified that the causeway was much more attractive than the bridge and an engineer and two ironworkers testified that the bridge could not be repaired. The trial court personally viewed the causeway. The court found for Ds and that any injury to Ps because of the construction of the causeway 'was occasioned by Ps' joint and several acts of disinterest or refusal to cooperate. P appealed.